Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Did devs change phonon flags without rev'ing package?
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:02:32
Message-Id: pan$e4ce5$d6972639$5327ebb4$39606c3f@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Did devs change phonon flags without rev'ing package? by Frank Peters
1 Frank Peters posted on Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:04:58 -0400 as excerpted:
2
3 > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:55 -0700 Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com>
4 > wrote:
5 >
6 >> Yesterday I was emerge -DuN @world clean. It took hours due to Gentoo
7 >> decisions about multilib stuff.
8 >>
9 >>
10 > Is it still necessary to be using multilib?
11
12 If you're running 100% freedomware, almost certainly not -- if you look
13 at the per-arch package coverage stats in the gentoo newsletter, amd64
14 actually has higher coverage now than x86, and the trend is certainly
15 downward for x86.
16
17 [x86 32-bit-only diversion]
18
19 Actually, as some probably know I follow the gentoo-dev list as well, and
20 just last week there was a short (only a handful of posts, maybe 3-5)
21 discussion on demoting x86 to minor arch status, with the comment that
22 all i86 based cpus have been 64-bit for some years now.
23
24 Before the rumors get out of hand, however, the very quick conclusion was
25 that now wasn't the time for that, but at the same time, that there's a
26 real chance that conclusion will change in a few years... But note that
27 as I said, the subthread was very short. I expect that if it had been a
28 serious proposal, there would have been a few devs effectively saying
29 "Over my dead body!", as they have for a few other proposals over the
30 years. That, BTW, is why gentoo continues to have a very solid
31 commitment to openrc, even as systemd is now well supported as
32 effectively an equal option. There's some very core devs and some of
33 gentoo's donated hosting running openrc on installations of hundreds or
34 thousands of machines, and as long as that's the case, openrc support
35 won't be going anywhere, because if it did, gentoo would suddenly find
36 itself forked and much smaller! I have a feeling the resistance to
37 dropping x86 to minor at this point would be very similar, tho I think
38 everyone agrees now that the time is likely to eventually (perhaps 5-10
39 years out) come.
40
41 Meanwhile, personally, I /did/ have a 32-bit-only original atom n270
42 netbook and thus could have cared, but as I said in the recommendations
43 thread, I loaned it out and don't expect to ever get it back (tho I'm not
44 actually too upset about it), and also as I said in that thread I'm
45 basically standardizing on amd64 for everything now, so no big deal for
46 me personally, tho I definitely agree with the conclusion above, now is
47 not the time.
48
49 [end diversion]
50
51 Back to the 32-bit multilib on otherwise 64-bit amd64, tho...
52
53 As I said, freedomware only, 64-bit-only is almost certainly easiest.
54 If, however, you're running servantware binaries of any sort, well, the
55 signature quote says it, you're effectively a slave to whatever whims the
56 master of that binary may have, and if they've never come out with 64-bit
57 or if you've never chosen to do whatever upgrade at whatever cost might
58 be required to get it, well...
59
60 But, for those where it's possible to go 64-bit only, I'd strongly
61 recommend it.
62
63 Back when I originally made the switch on my main machine, if you weren't
64 actually running anything 32-bit it only mattered for a few core
65 packages, glibc and gcc being big ones. But glibc in particular went
66 from being a big deal to build, to just another package, because building
67 it for 32-bit as well effectively doubled the package build time. (And
68 back then, nptl was still new and many things still defaulted to Linux-
69 threads instead of native-posix-thread-library, so big parts of glibc
70 were already built twice, once for lt once for nptl, and building for 32-
71 bit also actually doubled /that/, so people with multilib were actually
72 building glibc FOUR times!! Of course that was on much slower equipment,
73 when dual-core was new too, so it was a **BIG** deal!)
74
75 But, while the emul-* thing was definitely faster for other packages, it
76 was faster in the binary-distro sense of being pre-built, and thus, not
77 really all that gentooish at all! Which is why, for people that wanted
78 to do it the /real/ gentoo way, there was the 32-bit chroot guide. Which
79 is what I expanded on when I did the 32-bit chroot buildroot for my 32-
80 bit netbook, on my 64-bit main machine. Basically, the original 32-bit
81 chroot guide was setup as a nearly full 32-bit x86, minus the stuff where
82 the 64-bit native side provided the services -- the kernel, most system
83 services like syslog, cron, etc. The point being, people could then
84 actually build the 32-bit stuff themselves, as any real gentooer likely
85 wanted anyway as the control it allows is the /point/ of gentoo, instead
86 of installing the multilib stuff and using the un-gentoo pre-built-binary
87 emul-* solution. Of course, since I was building a complete solution for
88 a 32-bit machine, not just for running 32-bit apps in a chroot, I built
89 the extra packages, kernel, services, etc, as well, in the chroot, and
90 then transferred them to the 32-bit netbook. (Originally I rsynced by
91 thumb-drive "sneakernet", which was how I did the initial install on the
92 netbook. Then after I set up ssh, rsync over the LAN via SSH -- the
93 netbook itself never actually had a copy of the gentoo tree as I never
94 actually ran emerge on it at all, not even for binary packages, I simply
95 rsynced from the 32-bit buildroot chroot.)
96
97 What the new multilib solution enables is thus far more "gentooish" than
98 emul-* /ever/ was, but by the very SAME token, it's ALSO a lot more work,
99 because you're effectively building a lot more stuff twice, once each for
100 32-bit and 64-bit.
101
102 If you still actually NEED the multilib, that's great, you get far more
103 control now by actually building it yourself!
104
105 But if you do *NOT* need multilib, you're now building MUCH more stuff
106 twice, entirely USELESSLY, simply because you're still setup for multilib
107 and that's what it does, even tho you don't actually NEED it.
108
109 Thus, as I said, if your use-case is such that you can do so, it's
110 STRONGLY beneficial to go no-multilib, 64-bit only -- you'll save
111 yourself LOTS of time and CPU cycles avoiding the double-builds. OTOH,
112 if your use-case requires multilib, great, you now have it in a far more
113 gentooish way than was ever possible with the emul-* solution!
114
115 > I've been using pure AMD64 for so long I tend to forget that 32-bit
116 > stuff still exists.
117
118 Same here. Except that...
119
120 Since I follow the gentoo-dev list, I saw all the new multilib stuff
121 being hashed out there. Plus, I had a lot of otherwise useless revision-
122 rebuilds to do, that was simply churn due to enabling the new multilib
123 stuff that didn't affect me directly at all other than all the rebuilds
124 (which I still did instead of simply blocking, because while I don't have
125 Mark's 12-core monster, even with a 6-core first-gen amd bulldozer fx6100,
126 it's less hassle and sometimes faster too, to simply do the rebuild than
127 to fiddle with masking it because it's a multilib-only rebuild. But as
128 I'm ~amd64 and even newer (overlays, live-git packages...), even most of
129 those rebuilds happened months ago, far enough back in history that the
130 details are already going fuzzy, for me.
131
132 But yeah, pretty hard to forget the 32-bit stuff when you're doing a
133 bunch of personally useless rebuilds due to the new multilib stuff that
134 doesn't otherwise affect you at all...
135
136 Just makes me even /more/ glad I'm no-multilib and don't have to worry
137 about that stuff any longer! =:^)
138
139 --
140 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
141 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
142 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Did devs change phonon flags without rev'ing package? Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net>
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Did devs change phonon flags without rev'ing package? Barry Schwartz <chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org>